Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Your back garden
I Imagine it is the 1/5 of the jet fuel that you fail to mention which makes it significant as a fuel in this case. I have done no research on the matter but that would be my gut feeling as, you understand, jet fuel isn't kerosene despite the fact kerosene is a large component in its manufacture. Small additions can radically alter the properties of the end product.
In support of the point by swntzu: I imagine a plane crashing into a structure does little for said structures integrity. This now weakened structure is expected to maintain the building whilst also ablaze? Though crude, think of a game of jenga. It only takes the removal of one brick (a perverse plane sized brick in this case) to bring the whole tower down. This, incidentally, is also true of major structrues such as bridges which can fall down thanks to the sheering of rivets during periods of stress. The severing of a 1cm piece of metal can be ultimately held accountable for the entire structure collapsing. It seems fair to suggest the planes and ensueing blaze caused the towers to collapse.
I would need to see convincing evidence to flirt with the idea of a conspiracy. My argument is not in defence of government, which, it just so happens, I dislike. it is, however, in support of a fact based analysis of the event. It is no better or worse to believe blindly a conspiracy theory than it is to believe the story we are fed by the government and its propaganda machine, the media. Always better to return to the facts and ultimately let those do the talking.
"Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun"